So...can we eat Chick-fil-A again?
September 19, 2012 8:03 AM   Subscribe

Chick-fil-A (previously), after negotiations with The Civil Rights Agenda's Alderman Joe Moreno, has apparently confirmed that they will no longer give money to anti-gay organizations.
posted by Maaik (104 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite

 
That's a good step. I will still never step foot in one of their restaurants ever again, because the Cathy family is made up of total shits.
posted by xingcat at 8:07 AM on September 19, 2012 [16 favorites]


So, the donations to anti-gay groups will now simply come directly from Dan Cathy's pockets?
posted by Thorzdad at 8:07 AM on September 19, 2012 [35 favorites]


Honestly, that's all I ever wanted. A company can be run by a horrible guy...but as long as my money doesn't go directly to opposing things I believe in, I'm okay.

What Dan Cathy chooses to do with his money is up to him.

Plus their sandwiches are really very good.

I hope that this is true.
posted by inturnaround at 8:10 AM on September 19, 2012 [8 favorites]


Didn't they already halfheartedly promise this before?
posted by schmod at 8:11 AM on September 19, 2012 [2 favorites]


Profits from Chick-fil-A's business will still fuel anti-gay and "traditional marriage" organizations. Donations will just come out of Dan Cathy's personal funds.

The furor this summer was about the corporate position of Chick-fil-A as a company, which AFAIK had not been stated so explicitly in the past.
posted by catlet at 8:13 AM on September 19, 2012 [3 favorites]


I will give it a little while to learn what the caveats are, but I may well find myself at Chick-Fil-A again in the next few weeks. Of course, I'll probably get annoyed and resolve to stop going again when they tell me to have a blessed day or some other religion-on-sleeve BS, but at least I don't have to feel like I'm kicking a gay person in the nuts should I decide to eat there.
posted by wierdo at 8:14 AM on September 19, 2012


They never made reference to changes to the Winshape Foundation before as far as I can tell, but they did made the pledge to respect all their customers before.
posted by inturnaround at 8:15 AM on September 19, 2012


It's not like they suddenly had a change of heart, this is a business decision. Still, it does show that boycotts and bad press can work to change a company's practices.

Will they still be giving money to groups that promote intelligent design? While not on the same level as awful as discriminating against certain people, it's still pretty harmful in its own way.
posted by bondcliff at 8:16 AM on September 19, 2012 [3 favorites]


If this is true, I'd love to watch all those anti-gay Evangelicals shit a collective brick. The result of their demonstrations is... the opposite of what they wanted?
posted by Rykey at 8:17 AM on September 19, 2012 [21 favorites]


Millions of arteries clogged for nothing! NOTHING!
posted by Artw at 8:17 AM on September 19, 2012 [11 favorites]


Thank God, I didn't know how much longer I could hold out.

Chicken sandwiches and sweet tea for everyone! A glorious day.
posted by Hollywood Upstairs Medical College at 8:17 AM on September 19, 2012 [3 favorites]


An openly gay person could still never own a Chik-Fil-A franchise, which is enough to keep me away.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 8:19 AM on September 19, 2012 [48 favorites]


Jesus people. Don't eat fast-food regularly because it's /fast-food/. They even tell you not to eat it in the name.
posted by clvrmnky at 8:20 AM on September 19, 2012 [4 favorites]


(Same probably with non-married heterosexual couples and non-Christian folk as well. If I'm overreacting based on the Forbes article prove me wrong Cathy family and I'll eat your chicken gladly.)
posted by MCMikeNamara at 8:21 AM on September 19, 2012 [2 favorites]


A company can be run by a horrible guy...but as long as my money doesn't go directly to opposing things I believe in, I'm okay.

I'd like to agree with you, but I can't tell you how good it feels to have moved from GoDaddy to Gandi.net. Up yours, a-holes.
posted by mcstayinskool at 8:23 AM on September 19, 2012 [11 favorites]


I guess I'm weird in that I'm from the South and still value basic human rights over some rich dude's chicken sandwiches.
posted by beaucoupkevin at 8:23 AM on September 19, 2012 [22 favorites]


There will be much gnashing of teeth and rending of clothing by knuckle draggers everywhere upon hearing of this traitorous turn of events.

I can't believe the morons at Chik-fil-a ever thought it was a good idea to publicly embrace this tar baby in the first place.
posted by 2N2222 at 8:25 AM on September 19, 2012 [2 favorites]


As a person who shoved his face full of greasy, foam-like chicken for days and days as a way to stick it to the gayz, this upsets me greatly! A pox on your house, Chicken Fillets! I am going to spend the day throwing up every last remnant of your slimy, cold sangwiches!!
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:26 AM on September 19, 2012 [1 favorite]


inturnaround: A company can be run by a horrible guy...but as long as my money doesn't go directly to opposing things I believe in, I'm okay.

Your money directly goes to the cashier, where it then gets routed to the company, either at the local level or higher up. From there, it gets routed to buying more foodstuffs, paying employees, rent and utilities, and company management, including the horrible guy who runs the company.

Until the horrible people behind the company come forward and say "hey, we were wrong to discriminate against anyone based on religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation, and we won't support or provide funds to any organization that does discriminate" they're still the same people they were before, and your money is still getting to them. Just because he's not personally taking your money doesn't mean he won't get a few pennies from each transaction.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:26 AM on September 19, 2012 [6 favorites]


Until the horrible people behind the company come forward and say "hey, we were wrong to discriminate against anyone based on religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation, and we won't support or provide funds to any organization that does discriminate" they're still the same people they were before, and your money is still getting to them. Just because he's not personally taking your money doesn't mean he won't get a few pennies from each transaction

I'm patronizing a company, not aCEO.

For example, Domino's Pizza used to be owned by Tom Monaghan who is for a whole bunch of conservative causes I don't agree with. But Domino's never spent any money on Pro-Life causes as far as I know. How Monaghan spent his pay was up to him.
posted by inturnaround at 8:32 AM on September 19, 2012 [4 favorites]


I'm patronizing a company, not aCEO.

Companies are people too.
posted by Artw at 8:34 AM on September 19, 2012 [15 favorites]


Wow. That actually seems rather surprising turnaround to me, given how visibly (and how recently) they announced their anti-gay stance. I think that's actually a pretty cool development.
posted by likeatoaster at 8:36 AM on September 19, 2012 [4 favorites]


And they're gay for your money.
posted by blue_beetle at 8:37 AM on September 19, 2012


Turns out that Chick-Fil-A appreciation day only happens once, but every day is Boycott Bigots day.
posted by straight at 8:38 AM on September 19, 2012 [27 favorites]


This just seems like a weird move. They already pissed off all the non-bigots... so now they want to piss off the bigots, too? Do they WANT to go out of business?

Or perhaps they're imagining a sandwich fueled war in which every fresh and contradictory announcement brings a new wave of protesters to their tables to vote with their stomachs
posted by crackingdes at 8:40 AM on September 19, 2012 [2 favorites]


Just because he's not personally taking your money doesn't mean he won't get a few pennies from each transaction.

And I'm okay with him being a bronze-age troglodyte of a human being. As long as he's not stopping the CEO of every tech company pushing for marriage equality. He can think differently. I'd rather think about the 10s of thousands of employees, suppliers and support people, some of whom are undoubtedly gay, that my chicken sammich helps support than the one twit at the top.
posted by DigDoug at 8:43 AM on September 19, 2012 [2 favorites]


If you refuse to do business with companies run by people whose politics and beliefs clash with your own, you'll spend an inordinate amount of time researching the personal beliefs of a lot of CEOs. You'll also soon discover there are very few companies you can do business with.
posted by Longtime Listener at 8:45 AM on September 19, 2012 [11 favorites]


I see it as merely a business decision because they were not allowed to expand due to their "charitable" affiliations. Family organizations, my butt.

Also, for those of you who still go there, be sure to say "thank you" a lot so they are forced to say "my pleasure", instead of "you're welcome".
posted by haunted by Leonard Cohen at 8:47 AM on September 19, 2012


Wow, I guess that all those haters lining up on Chik-fil-A Appreciation Day didn't translate into permanent increased sales, huh? Maybe even into a long-term net loss, hmmm?
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:47 AM on September 19, 2012


If you refuse to do business with companies run by people whose politics and beliefs clash with your own, you'll spend an inordinate amount of time researching the personal beliefs of a lot of CEOs. You'll also soon discover there are very few companies you can do business with.

If they're proud enough to broadcast their hate, then that's actually an easy decision for me. That very reason also the reason I avoid corporations whenever I can, for the most part. It's easier to spend 10% more and know you're supporting a local business that doesn't have a horrible human being collecting a big paycheck than save that money and worry about where your money's going.
posted by beaucoupkevin at 8:48 AM on September 19, 2012 [9 favorites]


And again, it has nothing to do with where the money goes. Eat at Chik-Fil-A all you want, but know that a non-heterosexual or non-Christian people's lives who work there (or theoretical same who would want the benefits of owning a franchise but wouldn't be allowed) are made very difficult and the corporate/hiring structure, thus far, is set up in such a way that protects them from getting into too much trouble for doing so.

This is about more than the Cathy's family personal beliefs for me, and much more about the type of company it continues to be. No longer giving money to anti-gay organizations is, literally, the least they can do.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 8:48 AM on September 19, 2012 [7 favorites]


If you refuse to do business with companies run by people whose politics and beliefs clash with your own, you'll spend an inordinate amount of time researching the personal beliefs of a lot of CEOs. You'll also soon discover there are very few companies you can do business with.

If a CEO is going to make a point of telling me his or her beliefs, I should just ignore them then? You're right, this is too complicated. Let's just go stuff our faces and forget it.
posted by dhalgren at 8:49 AM on September 19, 2012 [15 favorites]


If you refuse to do business with companies run by people whose politics and beliefs clash with your own, you'll spend an inordinate amount of time researching the personal beliefs of a lot of CEOs. You'll also soon discover there are very few companies you can do business with.

I fail to see the downside, here.
posted by odinsdream at 8:50 AM on September 19, 2012 [17 favorites]


I've had a little luck figuring out how to make Chick-Fil-A at home, so now I have no reason to go back.

Sorry, dudes, you had your chance.
posted by magstheaxe at 8:51 AM on September 19, 2012 [1 favorite]


Re: the one twit at the top

Remember though, that while the 10s of thousands of employees, suppliers and support people might be making enough to eek out a somewhat decent living... that one guy at the top has enough to send millions to whatever charity they'd like. I'm still not sure I'm okay with that concept.

A somewhat-not-quite-unrelated-aside: I saw a show on HGTV here in the last few days where the owner of a business I frequent was buying a vacation property in Mexico, and the value of the properties he was looking at were well above what I could afford. My first thought: I think I'm overpaying for the goods.

It's probably not quite as simple as that, but I'd like to be able to go in somewhere and buy a nice chicken sandwich and not be funding a plush corporate jet, or even a racist and/or bigoted organization to the tune of millions of dollars. Is that even theoretically possible these days?

The only thing I can come up with is to buy local. But living in the south that still feels like I'm more than likely handing money up the chain to a racist and/or bigoted entrepreneur who doesn't mind stepping on people's toes for their own gain.
posted by Blue_Villain at 8:51 AM on September 19, 2012 [3 favorites]


If a CEO is going to make a point of telling me his or her beliefs, I should just ignore them then?

Is that where you draw the line? If they quietly support causes you abhor, it's OK to patronize the company?
posted by Longtime Listener at 8:55 AM on September 19, 2012


This would be better news if Chick-fil-A weren't an anti-gay organization in and of itself.
posted by jamjam at 8:56 AM on September 19, 2012 [2 favorites]


Companies are people too.

No, I keep telling you, soylent green is people!!
posted by Melismata at 9:01 AM on September 19, 2012 [5 favorites]


Wow. That actually seems rather surprising turnaround to me, given how visibly (and how recently) they announced their anti-gay stance. I think that's actually a pretty cool development.

I think this is probably the "greater good" thing that comes out of this - after all this hubub over Cathy's remarks, and now Chik-Fil-A's backing off (probably for purely financial reasons), bashing gays or advocating against equal rights will be seen by a lot of companies as not a good business decision. Whatever little conservative echo chamber there is that leads companies or CEOs to believe that homophobia is a decent business platform has been destroyed. Even if it's just for pure business reasons and not because the people making those decisions have had some change of heart, that's a step in a positive direction - public display of your homophobia isn't going to win you anything in the long run.
posted by LionIndex at 9:08 AM on September 19, 2012 [6 favorites]


Blue: I'm not really completely okay with it either. But it's "better". And I have a really hard time stomaching the slippery slope of telling even fools how to spend, or not spend, their money.
posted by DigDoug at 9:15 AM on September 19, 2012 [1 favorite]


Staying closed Sundays must be a big financial hit for them, but they do it despite the cost.

Giving money to anti-gay causes was not worth the cost. Which means, people, a boycott actually ... worked.

I'm kinda blown away to be perfectly honest.
posted by selfmedicating at 9:17 AM on September 19, 2012 [6 favorites]


Despite my protestations, my two very young children (2 and 4) demand CFA often. And while i personally have told them "no" every time since I learned of CFA's transgressions, every once in a while I come home and find that Mrs. Creature has purchased some while I was away.

And there it sits, on the kitchen table, smells wafting across the room and pulling me in. Reader, I give in to that temptation every time. And then I ask my wife for the receipt so I can make an equal-value donation to GLAAD.

This habit is getting expensive.
posted by Doleful Creature at 9:18 AM on September 19, 2012 [7 favorites]


I think this is probably the "greater good" thing that comes out of this - after all this hubub over Cathy's remarks, and now Chik-Fil-A's backing off (probably for purely financial reasons), bashing gays or advocating against equal rights will be seen by a lot of companies as not a good business decision. Whatever little conservative echo chamber there is that leads companies or CEOs to believe that homophobia is a decent business platform has been destroyed. Even if it's just for pure business reasons and not because the people making those decisions have had some change of heart, that's a step in a positive direction - public display of your homophobia isn't going to win you anything in the long run.

It's almost as if the "free" market was working as intended...

Now can we talk about all the things my tax dollars go towards that I don't approve of? At least I choose whether to spend my money at the chicken shack.
posted by TheFlamingoKing at 9:20 AM on September 19, 2012


The result of their demonstrations is... the opposite of what they wanted?

It's like, unknown to them, they were eating dicks all along.
posted by octobersurprise at 9:22 AM on September 19, 2012 [1 favorite]


Doleful Creature: I know what you mean. We've caved once, and I immediately made an equal donation to GLAAD, but that could get really expensive..
posted by needlegrrl at 9:23 AM on September 19, 2012


Companies are people too.

No, I keep telling you, soylent green is people!!


Soylent Green is Companies!!!
posted by Cosine at 9:28 AM on September 19, 2012 [3 favorites]


If they quietly support causes you abhor, it's OK to patronize the company?
This is why cognitive dissonance is a thing. At certain levels it's completely cray cray, but at lower levels it's almost a requirement for humanity to exist.

I mean, theoretically speaking, we all differ from everybody else in some way. So if we only chose to interact with those that held the exact same beliefs as ourselves then we'd never interact with anybody else.

Everybody has their own biases, even we ourselves find them to be ridiculous. (I mean, seriously, My Little Pony fan fiction is a thing. Seriously?) So if I found out that someone did such a thing that annoyed me I'd be wary of them... heck, if I was hiring for a job and found out that an applicant did that thing I probably wouldn't hire them. (Seriously, that's just weird man.)

But I doubt anybody would appreciate me anteing up for a billboard outside of town decrying how terribly awful MLP is, or how the people who write the stuff are terrible human beings.

So yeah, I'm going to go with "Yes, if they quietly support causes it's OK to patronize the company. But if they shove their beliefs in my face I probably won't go there."
posted by Blue_Villain at 9:28 AM on September 19, 2012 [1 favorite]


Question: is it pronounced chick-filler or chick-fill-eh?
posted by mippy at 9:29 AM on September 19, 2012


Now can we talk about all the things my tax dollars go towards that I don't approve of? At least I choose whether to spend my money at the chicken shack.

Vote. Call/write your elected officials. You have more power over where your tax money goes than what the numbnut CEO of a chicken shack actually thinks, and probably about as much influence as any one person's individual boycott of the chicken shack had on their eventual business decision.
posted by LionIndex at 9:31 AM on September 19, 2012


mippy: chick-fill-eh, or more accurately chick-fuh-lay
posted by Lyn Never at 9:44 AM on September 19, 2012 [1 favorite]


I don't eat there because their disgusting sandwiches are full of petroleum products and bear little resemblance to actual food.

Not funneling money to bigots is just a nice side-effect.
posted by Squeak Attack at 9:46 AM on September 19, 2012 [4 favorites]


if I was hiring for a job
If only discrimination against MLP fandom were, I don't know, somehow illegal, then there'd only be a bowl of STFU left to eat.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 9:49 AM on September 19, 2012


It's not as if Chick-Fil-A's bible-thumping is a recent development that should've stunned anyone. They've been shoulder-to-shoulder with Focus On The Anus^H^H^H^HFamily for many, many years.

You knew they were scorpions when you picked up their box of breaded nuggets.
posted by delfin at 9:57 AM on September 19, 2012 [3 favorites]


I adopted the policy of a friend of mine who, for every dollar she spends at Chik-Fil-A, she donates three times that to a pro-LGBT organization.

So basically, want that greasy goodness? $20 bucks if I want fries with it, and close to $25 if I get a fountain drink.
posted by joyceanmachine at 9:58 AM on September 19, 2012 [1 favorite]


chick-filler

hardly even know her
posted by twist my arm at 9:59 AM on September 19, 2012 [1 favorite]


Mippy, I had to ask someone as well. Chik-fil-a is not a universal-across-the-United-States thing. (It's supposed to look like a phonetic spelling of "chick fillet".)

Or perhaps they're imagining a sandwich fueled war in which every fresh and contradictory announcement brings a new wave of protesters to their tables to vote with their stomachs.

I wonder if this isn't some very weird way of doing an opinion poll? "Hm...do you have the numbers for the day after we announced we supported DOMA? Okay, let's try withdrawing that and see what it does for the sales and compare."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:00 AM on September 19, 2012


So are there people really out there that boycott any company with a CEO that gives money to causes they don't like?

How do you keep track of these things?

Is it just the CEO, or do other C-level executives count? Do Boards of Directors count? Do majority shareholders count? Do ex-employees with large stock holdings count? Do CEOs of prime suppliers to the company count?

Seriously, where does the line get drawn?
posted by Argyle at 10:06 AM on September 19, 2012


It gets drawn where you give a damn.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 10:11 AM on September 19, 2012 [3 favorites]


If only discrimination against MLP fandom were, I don't know, somehow illegal
Oh I agree entirely. I'm not sure how the reasoning progressed to say "black people can't vote, and neither can women" to "okay, now both black people and women can vote, but the gays aren't allowed to marry each other".

I mean, all of them are completely bigoted and chauvenistic. And I'm just not seeing the reasoning how one bit is allowable and the other isn't. I get that it's the way the law is written, but how the heck does a judge interpret it to say that certain types of stereotyping is okay, but not others.
posted by Blue_Villain at 10:12 AM on September 19, 2012


is/are whatever.
posted by Blue_Villain at 10:13 AM on September 19, 2012


For all the people who dismiss this as "it's just a business decision", I have to say that's precisely the point. Most of us saw it as a moral issue, but the way to get people like this to change their stance is to hit 'em where they really live: the wallet.
posted by grubi at 10:14 AM on September 19, 2012 [2 favorites]


Seriously, where does the line get drawn?

It's my money, so the line gets drawn wherever I want.
posted by Squeak Attack at 10:15 AM on September 19, 2012 [8 favorites]


Wait, equal donations to GLAAD is all it takes for a clear conscience? My wife and I were doing double donations to the HRC, so it's nice to know that a sandwich will only cost $6 instead of $9.
posted by kyleg at 10:16 AM on September 19, 2012


Please folks, read the "article" so you'll realize that this is one of those lovely click-gathering HuffPo headlines that has absolutely no backing in the copy below it. It sounds like, maybe the company is clarifying that LGBT employees or customers shouldn't be discriminated against...and that's nice I guess but it has absolutely nothing to do with the company's charitable donations. There has been no statement from the company about this, and there's not even a claim anywhere on HuffPo that this has any direct bearing on where the company's profits go or don't go.
posted by trackofalljades at 10:16 AM on September 19, 2012 [13 favorites]


The line is wherever you want it to be, actually, which is why it was a choice thing, not a government mandated (heh, man-dated) program set out to discriminate against Dan Cathy and Chick-fill-A.

Don't care, don't worry. care about this little corner of a corner of an issue? Find what you feel is appropriate and go from there. If the trouble really is that a person "needs" a chicken sandwich, well, they are't that rare of a bird, really, but whatever, if it doesn't matter to you it doesn't matter to you. Which was why so many people found the idea that a Choice based boycott as "oppression" to be absurd, and laughable were it not addressing an issue so violently (legalistically/economically) targeting gay people.

y'know, the concern for "the jobs of people working at the place" seems very out of place. If THAT sadwedge shop shut down, others fill the void, right? Others without such a structural system of inequality for franchising, others with owners and profits who are actively less bigoted than the current leaders. But whatever, this isn't a mandated thing, you do what you want, others will do what they want (the turn-around on this micro-aspect by corporate shows pretty clearly what the bottom line found to be decent respect for other citizens).

Further, it isn't like society "owes" chick-fulleh jobs to people, right?
I don't care if you go there, but making it out to be a "public service", "saving jobs of innocent folks"... is not really so valid as a "virtuous act". Even offsetting by donation still gives X dollars to the same people doing the same things as two weeks ago. Not "criticizing" anyone, but, really, is it something to go out and actively brag about? Nothing else changed in the money pool pipeline.

Chick-Fill-Ugh.
posted by infinite intimation at 10:17 AM on September 19, 2012 [4 favorites]


If they're proud enough to broadcast their hate, then that's actually an easy decision for me. That very reason also the reason I avoid corporations whenever I can, for the most part. It's easier to spend 10% more and know you're supporting a local business that doesn't have a horrible human being collecting a big paycheck than save that money and worry about where your money's going.

As someone who isn't religious and is highly liberal, purchasing things through a local business in the southeast often means I'm supporting someone who advocates against my own beliefs. Thus why many of us may opt to act based on what someone overtly does with their company vs. their overall personal belief.
posted by bizzyb at 10:18 AM on September 19, 2012 [3 favorites]


The celebrating in here reminds me of when Bill O'Reilly declared that his boycott of France had been a success.

this is one of those lovely click-gathering HuffPo headlines

It looks to be. I'm amazed people still read or link to that website.
posted by cribcage at 10:24 AM on September 19, 2012 [2 favorites]


Back in the seventies people boycotted all kinds of things on a regular basis from companies who did bad things. It seems like every month there was a new boycott from groups who brought out some heinous practice from some big company. By and large, such consumer boycotts actually worked - just as the bad press CFA received caused the company to at least issue a press release promising some kind of change.

As companies merged and got a LOT bigger, and threw around a LOT more money on advertising newspaper coverage of such boycotts decreased primarily because a newspaper didn't want to piss off a mega-corp who contributed 20% of it's advertising budget. This happened in the 80's and 90's and news coverage of national boycotts decreased and the process itself was mostly lost to the public-at-large's consciousness.

Well now newspapers have gone under and we have the internet who is (in this decade) beholden to no one. And smallish boycotts of companies like CFA get coverage , the word gets out and things change (even if only in small ways).

When people group themselves into a unified front, they have far more power than they realize - more power than big money wants them to realize. The scariest thing perhaps to the people who pull the strings behind the scenes id the realization by the general populace that we can actually change the world.
posted by Podkayne of Pasadena at 10:24 AM on September 19, 2012 [1 favorite]


So are there people really out there that boycott any company with a CEO that gives money to causes they don't like?

How do you keep track of these things?


Don't boycott based on beliefs; boycott based on actions.

I don't avoid Urban Outfitters because they sell vastly overpriced clothes and novelties, or because their CEO is a staunch conservative. I avoid them because their CEO donated five figures to Rick Santorum back in the 90s and thus helped inflict that asshole on my state.

I don't avoid Chick-Fil-A because the Cathys are Southern Baptists, or because they disapprove of gay marriage, or because this entire saga has made them poster children for the BRING AMERICA BACK TO JESUS rabble. I avoid Chick-Fil-A because they channel money to groups like FOTF that explicitly lobby to enshrine various religious beliefs into civil law.

Everyone has the right to believe that how I choose to live my life is wrong. Beliefs are free. When you start acting to try to restrict what I can and can't do based solely on your beliefs, that's shitting in my nest and I will reach for the nearest pointed stick.
posted by delfin at 10:35 AM on September 19, 2012 [12 favorites]


The scariest thing perhaps to the people who pull the strings behind the scenes id the realization by the general populace that we can actually change the world.
I agree entirely. There was this weird thing that seemed to happen in the 80's where people stopped even trying to change the world. Granted that was when the hippy/free love movement died and everything became corporate. But it was like everybody took on this dreary weight of the world without actually being able to do anything about it.

I'm not sure if it's the mass communication of the internet that's brought this concept back, but I'd love to look back on this time in history to see it as some sort of individualistic revival where we all thought we could at least change [i]something[/i] in the world for the better.

Heck, since corporate entities like CFA seem to be fine changing it for the worse, why can't individuals change it too?
posted by Blue_Villain at 10:38 AM on September 19, 2012


Hey! It's all ok now because Malibu Chik-Fil-A has a new hat!
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 10:41 AM on September 19, 2012


Question: is it pronounced chick-filler or chick-fill-eh?

big-uh-tid fuhn-duh-men-tl-iz-uhm
posted by FatherDagon at 10:47 AM on September 19, 2012 [8 favorites]


This is a non-story, since CFA has not confirmed it, and NOM says that "Wingate Foundation" never gave them money.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:49 AM on September 19, 2012


WinShape, sorry.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:54 AM on September 19, 2012


love to look back on this time in history to see it as some sort of individualistic revival where

I'd put it more in the communitarian revival than individualistic (Individualist says "I love chicken, i love that chicken, I will buy that chicken to maximize my ______", communitarian ideology tends towards thinking equally, or at the least co-equally of others in the context of their own individual beliefs, ideals, desires and thoughts). "Only that in you which is me can hear what I'm saying."
posted by infinite intimation at 10:54 AM on September 19, 2012


If Chik-Fil-A can show that they have not only stopped spending money on hate groups, but they have also made up for it by spending the same amount of money on HRC, GLAAD and other anti-bigotry groups, then I will personally write a letter to their CEO commending their actions with a promise to resume spending my money on their chicken sandwiches.

But it will be a lie because their sandwiches are gross and I can't even think about eating one without gagging ever since I found a six-inch-long human hair curled up in my sandwich back maybe around 1985 or so.

But maybe I'll buy someone I don't like a gift card.
posted by Cookiebastard at 11:06 AM on September 19, 2012


There was this weird thing that seemed to happen in the 80's where people stopped even trying to change the world.

Divided, "free" (to fail and die) individual"ist", anomie and "rugged" on your own-ness, pull your own bootstraps out of the swamp, you pathetic lazy Munchausen's was what defined the 80's that so many lament as having hurt, and left such a swath of people feeling impotent, powerless and disenfranchised. The greatest trick ever played... was convincing human people that they were stronger 'more free', or rather, that they could exist at all on their own.
posted by infinite intimation at 11:08 AM on September 19, 2012


And a fine lorem ipsum dolor to you as well, good sir.

(What was that? I don't even.)
posted by Blue_Villain at 11:23 AM on September 19, 2012 [1 favorite]


How do you keep track of these things?

Well, it can get pretty convoluted. I remember one email I received a long time ago, when I was working customer service for a company that manufactured a product only sold through the Home Depot (trying not to mention the product because I still work there, but it has to do with home improvement). I had a customer say he was going to not buy OUR product anymore, because Tony Stewart had recently switched from using Ford cars to Toyota cars. What does Home Depot have to do with cars you might ask?

Well, his logic was, first that even though he admitted that Toyota had plants in the US, it is taking money out of the country when people bought Toyotas. Second, Tony Stewart's major sponsor was Home Depot. Basically, he wanted to boycott our product (we sell through Home Depot, but we're not them) because a racing team that Home Depot sponsors is switching from a traditionally American automaker (that is known to manufacture cars in other countries) to a tradionally Japanese automaker (that is also known to make cars in the US).

It was also at about this point I was sick of customer service.
posted by FJT at 11:38 AM on September 19, 2012 [3 favorites]


CFA's official statement: At this point, we are not offering any response to the press release distributed by the Civil Rights Agenda other than the statement we originally released in July.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:38 AM on September 19, 2012


Oh yeah, and our product is 100% Made in the USA too.
posted by FJT at 11:40 AM on September 19, 2012


There was this weird thing that seemed to happen in the 80's where people stopped even trying to change the world.

It was called the election of 1980.

Ronald Reagan, 13 November 1979:

"A troubled and afflicted mankind looks to us, pleading for us to keep our rendezvous with destiny; that we will uphold the principles of self-reliance, self-discipline, morality, and -- above all -- responsible liberty for every individual that we will become that shining city on a hill."

We are now that shining city on a hill. Throwing the 47% off that hill into the muddy pit of self-reliance and self-discipline.
posted by blucevalo at 11:53 AM on September 19, 2012 [3 favorites]


As always, it sounds too generous to me when you call that kind of stupidity "hate."
posted by herbplarfegan at 11:56 AM on September 19, 2012


I don't eat there because their disgusting sandwiches

I don't have tons of experience with Chik-Fil-A except that they had long lines and very slow waitstaff.

But as far as the food is concerned, the chicken sandwiches were delicious.

The only better fast food chicken sandwich I had was by complete chance. My husband and I got lost in Austin after leaving his siser's house and we stopped at a random Wendy's for a bite to eat, and got their chicken sandwiches. They were divine, at least in so far as fast food goes. Really they tasted more like a bbq shack sandwich.
posted by Malice at 12:01 PM on September 19, 2012


"Despite recent news articles claiming Chick-fil-A's WinShape Foundation donated money to our organization—this is false. The National Organization for Marriage has never received funding from them. We support Chick-fil-A's philosophy that every person is treated with 'honor, dignity and respect—regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender;' and we will continue to endorse 'Chick-fil-A Wednesdays' calling upon all supporters of marriage, free speech and religious liberty to thank Chick-fil-A's president, Dan Cathy, for taking a courageous stand to speak out in defense of marriage and his freedom to speak." - NOM president Brian Brown.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:14 PM on September 19, 2012


DigDoug: Just because he's not personally taking your money doesn't mean he won't get a few pennies from each transaction.

And I'm okay with him being a bronze-age troglodyte of a human being. As long as he's not stopping the CEO of every tech company pushing for marriage equality. He can think differently. I'd rather think about the 10s of thousands of employees, suppliers and support people, some of whom are undoubtedly gay, that my chicken sammich helps support than the one twit at the top.
If you have to come up with a paragraph of "logic" to justify your fast food cravings and conscience, go for it. Me, I just prefer to shop with good people.
posted by IAmBroom at 12:15 PM on September 19, 2012 [2 favorites]


Don't worry, Chick-fil-A is still involved in other weird bigoted activities.

We in the DC area running community have recently had our own tempest in a teapot when local sporting-goods store Potomac River Running proudly promoted the Chick-fil-A 5K race, which got a good deal of blowback from people pissed off about the recent news. PR responded with "Hey, they're just sponsoring! It's a charitable event!" and people were like, "Holy shit, you call a place that gives Ollie North a platform to decry the repeal of DADT by comparing Obama to Hitler a charity?! DOUBLE FAIL."
posted by psoas at 12:17 PM on September 19, 2012 [2 favorites]


What Dan Cathy chooses to do with his money is up to him.

At what point is my money laundered so that I'm not supposed to care what he does with it?
posted by incandissonance at 12:24 PM on September 19, 2012 [1 favorite]


If you are really that invested (ha!) in what happens to your money long after it has left your hands, then I would encourage you to use Where's George? It's really neat.
posted by cribcage at 12:35 PM on September 19, 2012


roomthreeseventeen: "CFA's official statement: At this point, we are not offering any response to the press release distributed by the Civil Rights Agenda other than the statement we originally released in July."

Ah, so not true. Too bad. I'll have to keep going to the local chicken shack. They probably give money to all kinds of right wing causes, given where I live, but at least the scale is smaller.
posted by wierdo at 1:08 PM on September 19, 2012


At what point is my money laundered so that I'm not supposed to care what he does with it?

The thing that always comes to mind when people say "my money" about this issue is the fact that it is no longer your money when you receive food in exchange for it. You have a chicken sandwich. The money now belongs to Chick-fil-a.

This is not to say that I condone any of their anti-gay agenda. I stopped going there, myself.
posted by Fleebnork at 2:32 PM on September 19, 2012


Wait, is this the part where everyone that lined up to support them now boycotts them?
posted by dave*p at 2:50 PM on September 19, 2012


Wow, I guess that all those haters lining up on Chik-fil-A Appreciation Day didn't translate into permanent increased sales, huh? Maybe even into a long-term net loss, hmmm?

No, it means that Chick-Fil-A got to cash in on the Appreciation Day business, and now they're trying to stop the boycott so they get the pro-gay business, too.
posted by vibrotronica at 2:51 PM on September 19, 2012 [2 favorites]


Also, their chicken will now taste like cock.
posted by Nomyte at 6:03 PM on September 19, 2012


Please folks, read the "article" so you'll realize that this is one of those lovely click-gathering HuffPo headlines that has absolutely no backing in the copy below it. It sounds like, maybe the company is clarifying that LGBT employees or customers shouldn't be discriminated against...and that's nice I guess but it has absolutely nothing to do with the company's charitable donations. There has been no statement from the company about this, and there's not even a claim anywhere on HuffPo that this has any direct bearing on where the company's profits go or don't go.

Well, reading the article does yield this:
"We are very pleased with this outcome and thank Alderman Moreno for his work on this issue,” Anthony Martinez, executive director of TCRA, said in the statement. “I think the most substantive part of this outcome is that Chick-fil-A has ceased donating to organizations that promote discrimination, specifically against LGBT civil rights. It has taken months of discussion, both with our organization and with the Alderman, for Chick-fil-A to come forward with these concessions and we feel this is a strong step forward for Chick-fil-A and the LGBT community, although it is only a step.” [emphasis mine]
That itself is a quote from this press release linked in the HuffPo article (which is oddly the top page of the domain, so that link may not contain that press release forever). There is further information in that press release which says:
In a letter addressed to Alderman Moreno and signed by Chick-fil-A’s Senior Director of Real Estate, it states, “The WinShape Foundations is now taking a much closer look at the organizations it considers helping, and in that process will remain true to its stated philosophy of not supporting organizations with political agendas.” Winshape, a non-profit funded by Chick-fil-a, has donated millions of dollars to anti-LGBT groups, including some classified as hate groups. In meetings the company executives clarified that they will no longer give to anti-gay organizations. [emphasis mine]
Now, I'd say that at the very least, this article actually does have material backing the headline.

Although exactly how much clout the Senior Director Of Real Estate has in matters such as these remains something undefined by either the article or the press release.
posted by hippybear at 6:08 PM on September 19, 2012


Anyway, reading the article makes it pretty clear, Chik-Fil-A was losing the college crowd as an audience for their food. And spending habits formed in such hears are probably ones which stick, more or less, for life. Losing a generation or two of consumers will spell a limited lifespan for the company itself.

So, yeah. Bottom Line is what mattered to these people. They probably still don't think I'm a real person who deserves equal treatment under the law. They would just rather have my money and the money of the young adults who DO think I'm a real person than continue to say it publicly.
posted by hippybear at 6:11 PM on September 19, 2012


I made us all a lovely animooted gif to celebrate

Feel free to employ it in any way you see fit.
posted by Senor Cardgage at 10:19 PM on September 19, 2012


hippybear, everything you bolded was from the TCRA not the company, and so far all Chik-fil-A has actually said is that they aren't commenting on the "claims" made by TCRA.
posted by trackofalljades at 1:56 AM on September 20, 2012 [1 favorite]


Yeah, I'm aware of that. It's obviously HuffPo giving a press release a broad audience. But in your comment, you seemed to have not seen that paragraph at all or followed the link provided. Apologies if I was mistaken in that.
posted by hippybear at 5:47 AM on September 20, 2012


Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy Still Flaunting Anti-Gay Politics

Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2012/09/chick-fil-a-ceo-dan-cathy-still-flaunting-anti-gay-politics.html#ixzz272GjsJXh
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:22 AM on September 20, 2012


Wait, is this the part where everyone that lined up to support them now boycotts them?

Nah, this is the part where they quietly throw a sop to the people who previously boycotted them, and the ones who always whined about how good their sandwiches tasted and how difficult it was to not go there get to feel vindicated about no longer having to resist their urges and JESUS PEOPLE, IT'S JUST FAST FOOD.
posted by psoas at 6:20 AM on September 21, 2012 [3 favorites]


chick fil-a finds loophole in new advocacy policy
posted by gaspode at 8:09 AM on September 21, 2012


In a message posted on his website Friday afternoon, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee said he spoke personally with Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy, who gave him a statement saying, "There continues to be erroneous implications in the media that Chick-fil-A changed our practices and priorities in order to obtain permission for a new restaurant in Chicago. That is incorrect. Chick-fil-A made no such concessions, and we remain true to who we are and who we have been."

"I am angry and disgusted," said Rick Garcia, senior policy advisor at advocacy group The Civil Rights Agenda. "Chick-fil-A lied to us and lied to the alderman so that they could open their store in Chicago."


Surely no one is surprised by this?
posted by MissySedai at 7:26 PM on September 21, 2012 [1 favorite]


A look back at the week in Chick-fil-A news, by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's political reporter Jim Galloway.
posted by catlet at 4:46 PM on September 23, 2012


« Older A year ago, programmer Mark O'Connor decided to sw...  |  Gokicha, a four-panel manga ab... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments